The product of triglycerides and glucose as biomarker for screening simple steatosis and NASH in asymptomatic women

Autores: Simental Mendía Luis E, Simental Mendía Esteban, Rodríguez Hernández Heriberto, Rodríguez Morán Martha, Guerrero Romero Fernando

Resumen

Introduction and aim: Given that early identification of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is an important issue for primary prevention of hepatic disease, the objectives of this study were to evaluate the efficacy of the product of triglyceride and glucose levels (TyG) for screening simple steatosis and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) in asymptomatic women, and to compare its efficacy vs other biomarkers for recognizing NAFLD. Material and methods: Asymptomatic women aged 20 to 65 years were enrolled into a cross-sectional study. The optimal values of TyG, for screening simple steatosis and NASH were established on a Receiver Operating Characteristic scatter plot; the sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios of TyG index were estimated versus liver biopsy. According sensitivity and specificity, the efficacy of TyG was compared versus the well-known clinical biomarkers for recognizing NAFLD. Results: A total of 50 asymptomatic women were enrolled. The best cutoff point of TyG for screening simple steatosis was 4.58 (sensitivity 0.94, specificity 0.69); in addition, the best cutoff point of TyG index for screening NASH was 4.59(sensitivity 0.87, specificity 0.69). The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 3.03 and 0.08 for simple steatosis, and 2.80 and0.18 for NASH. As compared versus Steato Test, Nash Test, Fatty liver index, and Algorithm, the TyG showed to be the best test for screening. Conclusions: TyG has high sensitivity and low negative likelihood ratio; as compared with other clinical biomarkers, the TyG showed to be the best test for screening simple steatosis and NASH.

Palabras clave: Efficacy screening sensitivity specificity.

2016-10-21   |   355 visitas   |   Evalua este artículo 0 valoraciones

Vol. 15 Núm.5. Septiembre-Octubre 2016 Pags. 715-720 Ann Hepatol 2016; 15(5)